Skip to content

In children with cleft palate speech disorder, is speech improved when trained and supported parents deliver the therapy compared with typical care?

In children with cleft palate speech disorder, is there a statistically significant difference in speech outcomes, activity and participation, when intervention is delivered by trained parents supported by connective health (PLAT), compared with routine care? A comparative study of Parent Led, Therapist Supervised, Articulation Therapy (PLAT) versus routine speech therapy intervention for children with cleft palate speech disorders

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ISRCTN
Registry ID
ISRCTN10540035
Enrollment
48
Registered
2019-12-12
Start date
2016-01-29
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2023-06-20

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Articulation difficulties in children born with cleft palate/velopharyngeal dysfunction Signs and Symptoms

Interventions

This study aimed to investigate parent-led articulation therapy (PLAT) supported by a specialist therapist and connected health compared with typical routine care delivered by a non-specialist speech
an overview of cleft lip and palate management
normal speech development
cleft palate speech characteristics
principles of speech therapy in cleft palate
the use of rewards, reinforcement, praise and motivation
factors associated with good and poor progress
practical aspects of therapy including how to set up therapy, for how long and when
managing siblings and inclu

Sponsors

Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust
Lead Sponsor
Trinity College Dublin
Collaborator

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
All

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: For children: 1. Aged between 3 and 6.5 years 2. Presenting with cleft palate with or without cleft lip at birth or velopharyngeal dysfunction, with or without a syndrome not associated with learning disability, with or without suspected velopharyngeal insufficiency 3. Presenting with at least one cleft speech characteristic, with or without developmental speech errors 4. Stimulable for at least one novel consonant 5. Has age-appropriate attention and listening skills, behaviour and receptive and expressive language levels 6. Fluent in English For parents: 7. Fluent in English, 8. No diagnosed learning disability or mental health issues 9. Able to commit the time to undertake the intervention for 12 weeks

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: For children: 1. Has a syndrome with an associated learning disability 2. Has a known neurological deficit 3. Has behavioral problems 4. Has a bilateral hearing loss of greater than 30 decibels 5. Has a symptomatic fistula judged to affect articulation 6. Velopharyngeal surgery planned within the following 4 months 7. Presenting only with lateralisation/palatalisation or double articulation, or has no intra-oral air pressure on pressure consonants For parents: 8. Known learning disability or mental health issues 9. Unable to make the time commitment

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Extent of speech sound disorder assessed using Percent Consonant Correct - Revised scores. Single word naming, sentence repetition, sound stimulability and spontaneous speech were video recorded on five occasions: at baseline, immediately pre-intervention, midway through the intervention, immediately post-intervention and 2 months post-intervention. Consonants produced with correct place, manner and voice but with accompanying nasal emission/turbulence, dental/interdental, and weak/nasalized realizations were categorised as correct. PCC was calculated by the number of targets elicited divided by the number of targets correct, multiplied by 100. The targets analysed included a single target for each English consonant in word-initial and word-final position, except /h/ and /? /, and the plosives, fricatives and affricates in word-initial and word-final position in the phrase/sentence samples. Two independent therapists, blinded to the treatment arm, completed the analysis.

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
1. Intelligibility of speech assessed using the Intelligibility in Context Scale (ICS) questionnaire at baseline and immediately after the end of the intervention 2. Real-world communication ability assessed using the Focus on Communication Outcomes for under Six (FOCUS) scale completed by the parent-trained group on day 1 of training and by the parents in the control group on day 1 of therapy and by all parents immediately after the end of the intervention

Countries

England, Ireland, United Kingdom

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ISRCTN (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026